ADVERTISEMENT

BREAKING: Shocking reports are circulating that a Russian Su-57 stealth fighter pilot has allegedly carried out a devastating strike on a…

by

ADVERTISEMENT

The case reached the Supreme Court after a split among federal appeals courts

The decision preserves the FCC’s authority to impose financial penalties through its administrative enforcement system.

It is a major victory for federal regulators seeking to police privacy violations in the telecommunications industry.

Last year, AT&T persuaded the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out an FCC fine, arguing that the agency’s process improperly bypassed a jury.

Verizon, however, lost a similar challenge before the 2nd Circuit, creating conflicting rulings that prompted Supreme Court review.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter, ARSTechnica reported.

The ruling strengthens the federal government’s power to impose administrative penalties on companies accused of breaking telecommunications and privacy laws, while reducing a constitutional challenge that could have greatly restricted the enforcement powers of regulatory agencies.

The dispute stemmed from $104 million in FCC fines imposed on AT&T and Verizon in 2024 over allegations that the companies improperly handled customers’ real-time location data, conduct first brought to light in 2018, the outlet noted.

Under the FCC framework, companies can pay a fine and seek review through the federal appeals courts rather than having the case initially decided by a jury.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter, ARSTechnica reported

The carriers contended that this process deprived them of a constitutional safeguard guaranteed in civil cases involving substantial financial penalties, ARSTechnica noted further.

According to the Court, the carriers could have refused to pay the fines and forced the government to pursue collection efforts, a process that ultimately could have resulted in a jury trial.

“The FCC’s forfeiture proceedings fit comfortably within” the Supreme Court’s Seventh Amendment precedents, Roberts wrote.

“And the orders did not reflect the ultimate determination of any fact because, before the carriers could have been made to pay, the Government was required to prove its case to a jury,” said the chief justice.

ADVERTISEMENT

Leave a Comment

ADVERTISEMENT